TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of joint and several liability cannot arise and the Plaintiff's claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the Plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. In the present case, neither the driver/owner nor the insurer has filed any appeal or cross objection against the findings of the High Court that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court, we ought to proceed in the matter by accepting the said finding of the High Court. From the discussions that have preceded, it is clear that the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may now be set out: Deceased Yogesh (12 years) and Parshotam D. Gupta and injured Salochna were travelling in Jeep No. PB-03-6848 from Sirsa, Haryana to Vaishno Devi on 19.06.1993. The jeep which is owned by the Respondent No. 1 and driven by the Respondent No. 2 met with an accident with a truck coming from the opposite direction as a result of which Parshotam D. Gupta and Yogesh died on the spot whereas Salochna received serious injuries. Claim petitions were filed by the parents of Yogesh and the legal heirs of deceased Parshotam Dass including Salochna who is his wife. The injured Salochna also filed a separate claim petition in respect of the injuries sustained by her in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable at Rs. 2,00,000/- and made the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 liable for compensation to the extent of 30% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 60,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that though the High Court has rightly held both the vehicles to be responsible for the accident it has committed a glaring error in invoking the principle of contributory negligence in the present case and in apportioning the liability between the drivers/owners of the two vehicles. Relying on the decision of this Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 748 which has been followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age from the said work: WHERE two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the Plaintiff cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the Plaintiff to suffer a single injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the Plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and severally liable for it. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or indemnity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nthony (supra) which are relevant may be extracted hereinbelow: 6. Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he driver/owner nor the insurer has filed any appeal or cross objection against the findings of the High Court that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court, we ought to proceed in the matter by accepting the said finding of the High Court. From the discussions that have preceded, it is clear that the High Court was not correct in apportioning the liability for the accident between drivers/owners of the two vehicles. 9. We, accordingly, hold that the drivers/owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and it is open to the claimants to enforce the award against both or any of them. The order of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
